Reading Horizons
Volume 25, Issue 3
1985
Article 8
A PRIL 1985
Using Student Predictions to Teach Content
Area Vocabulary
Charles E. Martin∗
∗
†
John Mateja†
Southeastern Louisiana University
Southeastern Louisiana University
c
Copyright 1985
by the authors. Reading Horizons is produced by The Berkeley Electronic
Press (bepress). http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading horizons
Using Student Predictions to Teach Content
Area Vocabulary
Charles E. Martin and John Mateja
Abstract
The following strategies encourage the predictive behaviors of students attempting to acquire
new vocabulary. The strategies involve the kinds of thinking associated with anticipating meaning,
using context, and relating text to a purpose. They stimulate learners to make connections between
old and new information.
USING STUDENT PREDICTIONS
TO TEACH CONTENT AREA
VOCABULARY
Charles E. Martin, John Mateja
SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY, HAMMOND, LOu/SlANA
When content area teachers get together and talk about helping
their students learn, the discussion usually comes round to the
importance of key vocabulary and concepts needed for the subject
matter. Often, content teachers express frustration because their
students do not succeed in learning and using the specialized
technical vocabulary in their fields. They receive little support
from investigations related to reading (Weintraub et al, 1980,1981,
1982) since less that 1% of the studies on vocabulary deal with
meaningful acquistion of content related terms.
No article can constitute a panacea for teaching terminology.
However, a process that may alleviate some of the frustration
experienced by both teaches and students is called predictions.
In it, students make active contributions under the guidance of
the teachers. We believe teachers should incorporate predictive
behaviors into vocabulary instruction, using three strategies
that promote such learning involvement, described below.
Rationale for predictive behaviors
Any reading involves the active construction of meanings
based on anticipations of incoming words (Adams and Collins, 10/19;
Smith, 1982; Stanovich, 1980). Indeed, knowledge of word meanings
and the ability to manipulate words and concepts have been found
to be the two most important factors in reading comprehension
(Davis, 1944, 1968, 10/12).
Since anticipation and meaning construction require that
words be embedded in a text, it is natural that context would
prove to be the greatest facilitator of acquiring both vocabulary
and concepts (Crist and Petrone, 10/17). Similarly, it has been
found that although specialized terms may be more unfamiliar to
learners than general terms, specialized terms actually provide
more information about their meanings (Finn, 10/18).
Even with predictions based on context, readers would suffer
from information overload i f they could not somehow focus their
attention (Smith, 1982). Teachers can give direction to students'
attention by setting purposes for reading. Purpose setting improves
the kind, level, and degree of comprehension (Stauffer, 10/15).
Having intentions for one's reading is important for students
of all ages especially with expository texts (Just & Carpenter,
1980; Kintsch & van Dijk, 10/18).
rh-207
Strategies for enhancing prediction
The following strategies encourage the predictive behaviors
of students attempting to acquire new vocabulary. The strategies
involve the kinds of thinking associated with anticipating meaning,
using context, and relating text to a purpose. They stimulate
learners to rmke connections between old and new info:rrmtion.
A sample lesson for each strategy is described.
Contextual Redefinition asks students to predict the meanings
of words presented in isolation and then to verify the meaning
from the words I use in context. Figure 1 illustrates the procedure
with key vocabulary from a geometry class.
Sample Lesson for Contextual Redefinition
(Geometry Class)
Words to be introducedComplementary Angles
Supplementary Angles
Obtuse Angles
Acute Angles
Right Angles
Sentences presenting words in contextComplementary Angles always total 90 degrees.
Supplementary Angles always total 180 degrees.
Street corners are usually at Right Angles.
Obtuse Angles are larger than Right Angles.
Illustration presenting words in context-
c
Right Angle
GOA or
Acute Angle
Obtuse Angle
8
EDC
AOB,
BOC
COD, OR DOE
AOD,
BOE, or
BOD
Complemetary Angle
AGB and BOC
=------------=::~------4
Supplementary Angle
AOB and BOE
The steps for contextual redefinition are:
o
1) The teacher selects new key
They should always be important to
concepts being introduced.
vocabulary terms.
understanding the
2) The teacher writes a sentence which provides context clues
that the students may use to determine the meanings of the terms.
Different types of context clues can be used (McCullough, 1958;
Ames, 1966), such as comparison/contrast clues, linked synonyms,
other words that set the mood or tone of the sentence, or simple
definitions. Ideally, these sentences are taken from course work.
3) One at a time, the terms are presented to the students
in isolation and students discuss what the terms might mean. All
208-rh
their sug;gestions are recorded on the board. Then, as a group,
the class decides what are the best possible meanings. Though
some of the students' definitions may seem bizarre, it is amazing
how many times an off-the-wall answer leads to the appropriate
responses.
Ii) l'lcxt, the tc;}chcr pr~scnts c:Jch ""lOrd in context, .:Jnd st.l1dents speculate on their meanings. Students should be ready to
defend their answers. Not only does this cause students to think
more about the context clues provided, but it also allows poor
readers to see how their more able peers use context to determine
word meanings.
5) In the final step students use another source to verify
their word meanings. A dictionary, the glossary of the students'
textbooks, or some other reference materials (charts, graphs,
or illustrations). At this point it is interesting to refer to
the students' original predictions to see whether any were close
to the actual meanings of the tenns.
Besides providing practice in using context clues and reference sources, contextual redefinition serves several other functions. Most important of these is that of creating interest in
the tenns to be studied. Students are enthusiastic, finding out
whose predictions are correct. Because the tenns are unfamiliar
to most students, there is little fear of being wrong. They feel
free to get involved in the predicting parts of the lesson. Finally,
the procedure encourages students not to stop reading when unknown
words are encountered. Contextual redefinition promotes the attitude that guessing about the meanings of unknown words is desirable.
Possible sentences (Moore and Arthur, 1981) is another strateg;y designed to help students independently determine the meanings
of unknown words through prediction. Instead of simply giving
students definitions of words prior to reading, teachers have
students create sentences containing two or more of the new tenns.
Through this process, students are encouraged not only to speculate
on word meanings, but also on the interrelationships between concepts. Figure 2 shows the possible sentences procedure used to
introduce tenns in a biolog;y class.
Figure 2
Sample Lesson for Possible Sentences
(Biolog;y Class)
Words to be introducedprotoplasm
mitochondria
nucleus
chloroplasts
cell wall
cell membrane
Student generated sentencesThe protoplasm was in the cell membrane.
The nucleus has chloroplasts.
Mitochondria need protoplasm to live.
The cell wall and cell membrane are the same thing.
rh-209
The steps in possible sentences are:
1) The teacher selects key vocabulary terms from the text.
These should be words that are defined adequately by their context,
because students' Will later use the text to verify or refute the
predicted meanings. Words are then presented to the class and
pronounced several times.
2) Next, students create sentences using two or more of the
new words as the teacher records each sentence verbatim on the
board or overhead transparency. This process continues for a given
period of time or until a certain number of sentences have been
created. Words may be used more than once, but an effort should
be made to use every word.
3) Now, students read the text selection to check their prediction as students critique the sentences. The following questions
should be asked: Which sentences are correct? Which need modification? What are those modifications? Are there any sentences which
cannot be verified? The teacher plays an important role in guiding
a discussion and requiring that students' answers rrrust be supported
using information from the text.
4) After all modifications have been made and recorded, students are called upon to generate new sentences. These sentences
may be evaluated as they are dictated. Students should roodify
these sentences to clear up misconceptions or to elaborate on
each other's ideas.
Using prediction in possible sentences piques students' curiosity, question-raising behaviors, and self-checking ability.
Students should ask themselves: Are my ideas right? Are the terms
related in the way I have guessed? Motivation and purpose for
reading are established as students read to verify the predictions.
Finally, teachers are given an opportunity to assess their students
by the quality of their sentences.
Analogical Previewing. "Analogical previewing (Martin, 1980)
uses the time-honored notion of relating the new to the known.
In this procedure, students use analogies to explore the meanings
of unknown words by investigating how these terms are related
to familiar ones. Figure 3 shows how the procedure was applied
to vocabulary being introduced in a social studies class.
Figure 3
Sample Lesson for Analogical Previewing
(Social Studies Class)
Words to be introducedSamuel Gompers
HaymTI'ket Riot
Molly Maguires
Analogies presented to studentsSamuel Gompers : Labor Union
Working conditions : HaymTI'ket Riot
Molly Maguires : Employers
George Washington : United States
Pearl Harbor : WWII
& Strike Breakers
KKK : Blacks
210-rh
The steps to analogical previewing are as follows:
1) The teacher selects important terms. These should be words
that relate to important concepts and that can be explained truough
analogies. For instance, the term habitat could be introduced
llsi n£ t.hF ·:ma 1 '-:'£Y-['E,c·'pl!C· : neiehb'Jrhuou
..
c:uwrill: haLitat.
~t.lldcnt~) CGn l10C tllCil~
kl10wlcdgc
of
fJIiullill'
L{;l il~
illiJ LILt.; l'claLloIl
among the terms to predict the meaning of new words.
2) An analogy is then written which gives students a clue
to the meaning of the new term. It is important that students
are familiar with the other terms used in the analogy, as in the
example just presented on habitat.
Depending on the ability and background of the students,
teachers may wish to make the relations presented in the analogy
very explicit-electron : nucleus
moon : planet; or more
open to interpretation and discussion-stonewall : Watergate ::
dam : river. The analogies which are presented also may refer
to material which has been previously studied, e.g., Pharoah :
Egypt
Caesar : Rome.
Throughout analogical previewing, different types of relationships should be explored. Students should be given practice in
exploring part-whole, synonym, antonym, and similar function
analogies (Bellows, 1980; Ignoffo, 1980).
3) The analogies are presented to the class, using the chalkboard or overhead projector, and students brainstorm possible
meanings of the new terms. As they respond, their answers are
recorded on the board. Students should be encouraged to describe
all aspects of the concepts as well as the relations among the
terms in the analogies. Formal definitions are not required as
the idea is for students to discover as much as possible about
the new concepts and how those new concepts relate to what students
already know.
During this part of the lesson, the teacher directs discussion
of the analogies by asking questions which guide students' thinking
processes. For example, using the Watergate analogy presented
above, the teacher might raise these questions: What would happen
i f the dam broke? What happens to a dam when it develops a small
leak? What are the advantages of holding water behind a dam? What
are some of the problems? Answers to these questions are then
related to the analogous relationship of stonewalling and Watergate.
4) Finally, the analogies are reexamined through discussion
of the predicted meanings and answers to the questions. Further
discussion may revolve around answers to the following: Which
ideas were correct? Which needed modification? Can some of the
earlier ideas be elaborated? Teachers should try to bring out
aspects of the meanings and relations of the new concepts that
were not discussed previously.
By exploring analogies to learn new terminology, students
are able to activate and use prior knowledge of concepts and their
interrelationships. Besides providing review of previously learned
material, an active process is being taught that directly involves
the students in a search for meaning. Interest is created and
rh-211
an inquiring attitude toward vocabulary learning results.
Surrrn:rry
Prediction is an inherent and important feature of reading.
This article has suggested three strategies teachers can use to
capitalize on students ' predictive behaviors to facilitate the
acquisition of content area concepts and vocabulary. Each incorporates the notion of predicting, reading, and verifying under
the guidance of a skilled teacher. By using these steps, teachers
are not only effectively introducing new words to their students
but are also teaching them a process by which they may become
more independent readers.
R.EFERENCES
Adams, M.J., and A. M. Collins. "A Schema-Theoretical View of
Reading." In Discourse Processing: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, R.O.Freedle (Ed.) Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub Co, 1979.
Ames, W. S. "The Development of Classification Scheme of Contextual
Aids." Reading Research Quarterly, Vol 2 (1966), pp. 57-82.
Bellows, B.P. "Running Shoes are to Jogging as Analogies are to
Creative/Critical Thinking." Journal of Reading, volume 23
(March, 1980), pp. 507-511.
Crist, R. 1., and J. M. Petrone. "Learning Concepts from Contexts
and Definitions." Journal of Reading Behavior, Vol. 9 (Fall
1977), pp. 301-303.
Cunningham, J . W., P. Cunningham, & S. Arthur . Middle and Secondary
School Reading. New York: Longman, 1981.
Davis, F. B. "Psychometric Research on Comprehension in Reading."
Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 7 (Sum 1972) pp. 628-678.
"Research in Comprehension in Reading" Reading Research
Quarterly, vol. 3 (Summer 196$), pp. 499-545.
"F\mdamental Factors of Comprehension in Reading." Psychcrmetrika, vol. 9 (Winter 1944), pp. 185-197.
--Finn, P.J. "Word Frequency, lnfonnation Theory, and Cloze Performance: A Transfer Feature Theory of Processing in Reading."
Reading Research Quarterly, vol 13(1978), pp. 508-537.
19noffo, M. F. "The Thread of Thought: Analogies as a Vocabulary
Building Method." Journal of Reading v. 23(1980) pp. 519-
52l.
Just, M.A. & P. A. Carpenter. "A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension." Psychological Review, vol. 87 (1980),
pp. 329-355.
Kintsch, W. & T. A. van Dijk. "Toward a Model of Text Comprehension
and Production." Psychological Review, vol 85 (1978) pp.
363-394.
Martin, C. E. "Teaching Vocabulary Through Word Associations."
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Georgia Council
of the I.R.A., Atlanta, Georgia, March 1980.
212-rh
McCullough, C.M. "Context Aids in Reading." The Reading Teacher,
vol. 11 (April 1958), pp. 225-229.
Moore, D. & S. Arthur "Possible Sentences." In Reading in the
Content Areas: Improving Classroom Instruction, edited by
K K. ni shnpr, 1'. W. np;:m, ;Jnrl .T. 1':. Rp:1rlpnrp.
KcnrtJll/llllnt, Publ ~ Co . , 10~1 .
nllhllC}llP,
TnWrl :
Smith, F., Understanding Reading Ord ed.), New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982.
Stanovich, K. E. "Toward an Interactive-Compensatory Model of
Individual Differences in the Developnent of Reading Fluency."
Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 16 (1980), pp. 32-71.
Stauffer, R. G. Directing the Reading-Thinking Process. New York:
Harper & Row, 1975.
Weintraub, S., H.K.Srnith, N.L.Roser, W.R.Hill and M.W.Kibby (&is.),
Annual S1.llTITB1'Y of Investigations Relating to Reading.
Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1981.
Weintraub,S., H.K.Smith, C.P.Plessas, N.L.Roser, W.R.Hill, and
M. W. Kibby (&is.) Annual S1.llTITB1'Y of Investigations Relating
to Reading. Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1982.
Weintraub,S., H.K.Smith, N.L.Roser, M.Rowls, and W.R.Hill (&is.),
Annual Summary of Investigations Relating to Reading. Newark,
Delaware: IRA, 1980. --- ------- ------- - - - - -